The judiciary is supposed to have one guide when forming fresh perspectives: the Constitution. As they examine the constitutionality of laws and other government actions, they often refer to previous rulings as precedent while looking for similar rulings as justification for leaning one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s the Constitution alone that is supposed to guide their judgments. That’s why we should look for judges who have originalist perspectives, not necessarily conservative ones (though, let’s be honest, the vast majority of originalist perspectives will align with a conservative perspective).

Part of conservatism is conserving the original intent of a law, or in the case in question, a treaty. The Yakama Tribe signed a treaty with the United States government that gave them control of a huge amount of tribal land in Washington state. Part of the exchange included the ability for Yakama traders to use U.S. highways for free.

Washington charges per gallon for fuel trucked in from out of state. One Yakama company claimed the 1855 treaty meant they were not to be charged this tax. The decision in the Supreme Court went mostly along expected political leanings with the “conservative” Justices wanting to charge the tax and the “leftist” Justices siding with the Takama Tribe. The tiebreaker turned out to be Neil Gorsuch, who went to the “leftist” side but with the only conservative reasoning to drive a vote.

The dissent claimed the treaty allowed for free passage on highways just as any American citizen can travel, but that the taxes set by Washington must still be paid. Only Gorsuch recognized that the original intent of the treaty was to grant the tribe free passage, as in free of charge regardless of what the U.S., state, or local governments wanted to charge. This is the right perspective. It’s the conservative perspective.

Sad that the "conservatives" in the Supreme Court other than Neil Gorsuch were willing to abandon the original intent of a treaty to play party politics. This should have been a unanimous decision. Disappointed in Thomas most of all. https://t.co/iBIcZB2FnG

Should the other Justices who voted like Gorsuch get kudos as well? Probably not. I haven’t read their statements, but it’s safe to assume they ruled based on the party politics of supporting Native American rights whether they’re justifiable or not. Gorsuch ruled based on a proper interpretation of the treaty.

Conservatism and originalism go hand-in-hand when judges take the politics out of what they do. It’s hard. I’m not a judge so I shouldn’t… judge. But this seems to be a case where party politics played too much of a role. Gorsuch was right.

How the FISA Report will further dampen the Mueller Report

The hopes and dreams of Democrats around the country were systematically shattered over the last few months as the Mueller investigation into Russian hacking of the 2016 election yielded very little fruit. That hasn’t stopped the House Democrats from fishing for more information than the two-year investigation produced in hopes of hanging President Trump with an impeachment.

But the initial draft of the Department of Justice’s inspector general Michael Horowitz’s report has been given to the Attorney General for classification and markup, meaning the public will soon have access to the sordid details surrounding the Steele Dossier and other measures used to secure FISA warrants against the Trump campaign.

Meanwhile, former Deputy Attorney General Andrew McCabe has been recommended for charges after allegedly lying about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation around the same time period. And there’s still the U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into illegal spying on the Trump campaign. All of this combines for a very rocky road ahead for Democrats and former DoJ personnel who may be held accountable for a fruitless investigation trumped up by false claims and shoddy sourcing.

It seems very likely the various “investigations of the investigators” will cause controversy at the very least while possibly leading to charges against multiple people. The seemingly coordinated effort to subvert the Trump campaign and to counter his victory in the then-unlikely scenario in which he wins jibes with the incessant pushing of the collusion narrative by Democrats and mainstream media. It wasn’t that they had anything of substance. They hopes what they had would have substance that would manifest in the Mueller report.

But now the Mueller investigation itself is in jeopardy of losing any remnants of credibility it still has as the premise behind it is being challenged by Attorney General William Barr and the various investigations he has commissioned. Horowitz’s report is the biggest so far, but may only be the tip of the iceberg compared to what Durham may find.

With all of the arrows pointing to foul play by Obama’s DoJ and the Mueller investigation, these reports are likely to unravel all hopes the Democrats have of stopping President Trump before the 2020 election. After he wins, their dreams will be quashed.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

If you think you support red flag gun laws, listen to Jim Jordan talking about them

Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee are pushing through HR1236, the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019, that will impose red flag gun laws across the nation. The gun control legislation is being heralded by most on the left and some on the right who see it as a way of stopping mass shootings before they happen.

But conservatives are pushing back against the law as subversion of gun rights, property rights, and due process rights. One of those leading the charge to stop this bill from making it through the House is Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH). In a passionate speech within the committee, Jordan lambasted his colleagues for betraying their oath to the Constitution and for upending what the House Judiciary Committee was intended to do in protecting the Bill of Rights.

“What other constitutional right can you lose without doing anything wrong and without your knowledge, and have to petition the court to get it back?” Jordan asked.

Red flag gun laws such as HR1236 would allow various people to petition the court to have law enforcement remove firearms from people they believe to be a threat to themselves or others. It has gained in popularity following several mass shootings this summer, though none of them seem to have been preventable if such laws were in place. As Jordan points out, the language of the bill makes it to where anyone who has lived with the accused in the last year, from an ex-girlfriend to a disgruntled roommate, can have the court remove firearms without the victim even knowing the process is happening.

In other words, accusers get the power to paint someone as guilty without due process, at which point they must then prove to the court they’re innocent. This isn’t how America is supposed to work.

Law abiding citizens can be targeted for confiscation without doing anything wrong under red flag gun laws. This is unconstitutional, unAmerican, and moves us closer to the authoritarian state the left wants for all of us.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Supreme victory! Top court backs Trump’s asylum rules change for now

The fight to slow the flow of asylum-seeking migrants (and the criminal illegal aliens who often hide in their midst) gained access to a much-needed rules change Wednesday as the Supreme Court ruled against an injunction placed on the President’s asylum policy. With only two dissenters, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayer, this opens the door for the rule to be applied across the nation.

This is temporary, for now. Lifting the injunction does not make the rule permanent. It only allows the rule to stand while the court hears the whole case against it.

With this rule, asylum seekers can be denied instantly if they did not apply for asylum in the countries through which they traveled to get to the United States. This means nearly everyone from Central America, Africa, or anywhere else who went through Mexico to get to the United States can be denied asylum on the spot if they cannot demonstrate they first applied for asylum in Mexico and were denied.

Mexicans seeking asylum will not be affected by this rule.

The goal of the rule is to close the gap between initial screenings and hearings. Without the rule, the vast majority of those seeking asylum are granted access to a subsequent hearing. But most do not show up for this hearing and those who do are regularly denied because they are mostly economic migrants. Poverty is not a valid reason for granting asylum under U.S. and most international laws.

Asylum-seekers are using the old initial screening rules as a loophole that gets them released into the interior where the vast majority are never seen by the government again unless they’re caught committing other crimes. When they fail to show up for their asylum hearings, a removal order is almost always applied. Rather than playing cat and mouse with hundreds of thousands of migrants, this new rule allows the administration to stop them before they’re released to the interior.

The executive branch is granted broad powers over immigration by the Constitution. Unless the White House fails to make a solid case or a moderate Justice like John Roberts or Brett Kavanaugh decides to go against the President, this rule is likely to be made permanent.

With less hope of gaining access to the interior, this rule is very likely to dissuade many asylum-seekers from making the long journey to the United States border. We can expect border crossing apprehensions to drop in the coming months.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.